True, but we fucking knew he had the website weeks before the prosecution or the judge even had the case - why didn't they ask? Remember, this was the hearing during which Z apologized, which threw everyone for a loop and managed to derail the entire hearing. Is it really his fault, or is this just another politically-motivated action on behalf of the State of Florida?

They did ask and his wife lied. I mixed up who said it, my fault, but it was asked in court. The minute it was discovered I've been waiting for him to get snatched. It may have derailed them from asking Zimmerman, but the question was raised in court.

You have some serious rage control issues. I would see a doctor, if I were you.

Thanks, I don't take medical advice from retards. I see you have now decided to swap the post I was responding to—and which I linked to in my comment—for some other post. So, are you too stupid to actually follow the conversation you're having, even with links, or do you really think you're fooling anyone?

He's talking about this post:
They did ask and his wife lied. I mixed up who said it, my fault, but it was asked in court. The minute it was discovered I've been waiting for him to get snatched. It may have derailed them from asking Zimmerman, but the question was raised in court.

I did not know they discussed the website at that hearing. Mea culpa, however:

I wouldn't have relied on her testimony alone, because by her own testimony, she didn't really know what was going on.

A: I'm aware of that website.
Q: And how much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was --
A: Currently, I do not know.
Q: Who would know that?
A: That would be my brother-in-law.

She may have lied. She may have been kept in the dark. I don't know the answer to that. She did tell them to ask Z's bro. I don't think that happened, and I'm pretty damned sure nobody asked Z, based on the transcript.

Originally Posted by Rivington

Thanks, I don't take medical advice from retards. I see you have now decided to swap the post I was responding to—and which I linked to in my comment—for some other post. So, are you too stupid to actually follow the conversation you're having, even with links, or do you really think you're fooling anyone?

****, I don't know. What conversation are you following? Try and catch me up, I know that would please you to no end.

Whether YOU would believe her is irrelevant to the question you asked earlier.

True, but we fucking knew he had the website weeks before the prosecution or the judge even had the case - why didn't they ask?

They did ask.
If you want to argue if she lied then or later we can, but it is irrelevant to your first point. That's what Rivington is telling you. You didn't ask about "WHO" was questioned, you clarified that later.

Whether YOU would believe her is irrelevant to the question you asked earlier.

They did ask.
If you want to argue if she lied then or later we can, but it is irrelevant to your first point. That's what Rivington is telling you. You didn't ask about "WHO" was questioned, you clarified that later.

Dude, I said I was wrong.

I asked a month ago why nobody asked Zimmerman, and while that was still the point of my question this time, I admit that it was worded poorly. I didn't say "why didn't they ask anybody," I said "why didn't they ask." I think that's pretty plain to see, especially if you FOLLOW THE CONVERSATION.

Riv seems emotionally invested in winning the battle over my words, so I'll concede this round. I know what I meant, and if you guys don't, there's no way I'll convince you - you're too focused on my words and not on the subject matter.

When you added "however" that completely changed your "dude I was wrong" comment. That makes it reads like you are explaining what you meant in totality. Oh wait, that's exactly what you just did.

I read it correctly.

Zimmerman's been altering things, as people point out, since the beginning. The next best reliable source, or so they thought, was his wife IMO. This whole thing is cantankerous, I'd be curious if they can charge her with perjury if they can prove she was lying.

Putting aside all questions of Mrs. Z's truthfulness, why didn't the prosecution or the judge ask George Zimmerman during the bond hearing about the proceeds from the website? Or, if they did, please show me where in the transcript.

The judge is like "zomg they're hiding money from us." I'm thinking it's his and the prosecution's fault for not knowing about the money. This was my position last month, and it's my position now, absent any information which suggests otherwise.

I know what I meant, and if you guys don't, there's no way I'll convince you - you're too focused on my words and not on the subject matter.

More 'tard talk. Waaah, no fair, you're reading what I say. This is a text-based medium; we're not here to read your tiny little mind and then help you type out what you think you meant.

Originally Posted by daddykata

why didn't the prosecution or the judge ask George Zimmerman during the bond hearing about the proceeds from the website?

Because they asked the wife. Why did they ask the wife? Here's a guess: she wasn't the one in hiding and hadn't then subsequently been arrested, so was more likely to know how much money the family had access to via a) their social network of family and friends and b) the website. Zimmerman was arrested and sent to Seminole County Jail on 4/11. It can be difficult to check one's bank balance or make fund-raising phone calls or contact a financial advisor to discuss the possibility of a second mortgage from inside the county lock-up. Shockingly, shockingly, the judge may have decided that Mrs. Z knew better, because she was free to handle money and look at the family accounts in a way that Mr. Z wasn't.

What's the alternative theory—it's the prosecution's fault for not knowing about the money because all they did was ask about the money and get a non-answer, and then they monitored jailhouse communications and found Mr. and Mrs. Z talking about moving money back and forth between accounts because they didn't know about the money?

In other recordings Zimmerman’s wife, who testified at his bond hearing, called him from a credit union where she had an account linked to the “Real George Zimmerman” Pay Pal account, which at the time had about $130,000 in it. Prosecutors contend that she was “intimately involved in the deposit and transfer of funds and money into various accounts.”

Yes, we all know what we meant IN OUR HEADS. Most of us can say, "oh damn you are right this is what I meant." Today, not you for some reason.

Originally Posted by daddykata

Putting aside all questions of Mrs. Z's truthfulness, why didn't the prosecution or the judge ask George Zimmerman during the bond hearing about the proceeds from the website? Or, if they did, please show me where in the transcript.

The judge is like "zomg they're hiding money from us." I'm thinking it's his and the prosecution's fault for not knowing about the money. This was my position last month, and it's my position now, absent any information which suggests otherwise.

No, the prosecution was "here look they were hiding money form us." The judge was like "Dumbass, go to jail." It isn't the judges fault or responsibility to ask the questions for the defense or the prosecution.